toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I ran into this issue with mine, Charlie. I think I may be the most recent Q to have been certified (2018), but things have even changed since then. The Dragonfly and QAC ran their course before the FAA had put together their officially approved 51% summary list of kit built aircraft. I think that got finalized about 1987 or 1988 and has been periodically updated.
The main problem that you may run into is that if you call it a kit, then they want to see the bill of sale from the kit-manufacturer (QAC), and all subsequent bills of sale, proceeding to the present owner. I was able to talk my way out of the primary bill of sale by showing all of my purchase correspondence, cancelled checks, delivery sheets, etc. QAC did not issue an FAA approved “bill of sale”, so that was a problem (and I am the only owner, so no subsequent ones were required).
I think the latest generation of younger DAR’s for the most part have never heard of a kit without a kit-manufacturer bill of sale, so it really throws them off. Calling it a plans built or perhaps even an original design may be the more practical approach, especially if you want it to be registered with a repairman certificate issued to you. The only time the DARs really get bent out of shape if you include (non-avionics) assemblies or components that were salvaged from fully certified aircraft. When using experimental components, they are more liberal.
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of One Sky Dog via groups.io
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 8:21 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [Q-List] N169W
I just looked at the FAA approved kit list. The Q’s like Dragonfly do not appear on the list. That puts it in the category of plans built.
I deregistered my Dragonfly by writing scrapped on the registration and sent it in. I re- registered it same serial number and new N number. I presented it to the DAR as amateur built with me as the primary builder.
My you tube channel
On Sunday, July 10, 2022, 7:16 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote: